Background Non-attendance of 42% has been reported for outpatient colonoscopy among persons with low socioeconomic status (SES) in an open access system in the United States. Objectives To evaluate attendance to outpatient endoscopy among populations with low SES after in-person consultations with endoscopists prior to scheduling. Methods Retrospectively, we reviewed the endoscopy schedule from September 2009 to August 2010 in an inner city teaching hospital in Washington DC. We identified patients who came for their procedures. We defined non-attendance as when patients did not notify the facility up to 24 hours prior to their scheduled procedures and did not show up . Results A total of 3,304 patients were scheduled for outpatient endoscopy (mean age 55.2 years; 59.5% females). Only 36 (1.1%) patients were uninsured. 716 (21.7%) patients did not show up for their procedures. There were no differences in attendance by age, sex and race. Patients seen in a private endoscopist's office (OR=1.47; 95%CI: 1.07–2.04) were more likely to attend when compared to patients seen in trainees’ continuity clinic. Married patients (OR=1.40; 95%CI: 1.11–1.78) were also more likely to attend. Conversely, Medicaid and uninsured patients were less likely to attend. Restricting our analysis to patients scheduled for only colonoscopy yielded similar results except that patients who were 50 years and older were more likely to attend. Conclusions Our study suggests improved attendance to endoscopy when populations with lower SES undergo prior consultation with an endoscopist. There is a potential to further improve attendance to out-patient endoscopy by directly involving the social support of the patients.

Men increase their healthcare utilization to that of women only after they receive diagnosis of cancer. Targeted interventions to promote utilization of preventive care services by men are needed to reduce the burden of chronic illnesses including cancer among men.

No abstract

Background and study aims Negative experiences with bowel preparation are a barrier to uptake of colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of different flavoring of polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxatives on patient satisfaction with and adequacy of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. Patients and methods This was a single-blind (endoscopist), parallel design, randomized trial (NCT 02062112) during which patients scheduled for colonoscopy were assigned to one of three groups: Group 1 (no laxative flavoring, n = 84); Group 2 (flavored entire laxative, n = 90) and Group 3 (tasted PEG with and without flavoring and decided how they want to drink the rest of the laxatives (choice group), n = 82). Patients rated their bowel preparation experience (satisfaction) and endoscopists accessed adequacy of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. Results There were no differences in patient ratings across the groups (1, 2 and 3) in taste of the laxatives (P = 0.67), ease of drinking (P = 0.53), and overall experience of bowel preparation process (P = 0.18). However, higher percentage of patients in the choice group would want the same laxative again if they were going to have a repeat colonoscopy in the future (72.5 % vs 81.3 % vs 88.9 %, P = 0.04). Surprisingly, adequacy of bowel preparation was highest among patients who drank their PEG unflavored (89.3 % vs 80 % vs 75.5 %, P = 0.07) and the had highest rates of adenoma detection (40.5 % vs 23.3 vs 39.0, P = 0.03). Conclusions There were no differences in overall tolerability of bowel preparation by patterns of flavoring of PEG. Those who drank unflavored PEG were less satisfied but had better clinical outcome, suggesting minimum justification effect in bowel preparation process.

No abstract